Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Solar system

Solar system edit

Artists representation of the solar system with grid plane (not to scale)

Image:Solar sys.jpg with Pluto removed to show only "Classic" planets

This is an improved image, removing Pluto.

This is my first nomination for any featured object on Wikipedia, so I hope I do this correctly. I have made it detailed to explain my view as best as possible.

This image is of high quality, though it is a JPEG, it seems to not have lost any quality due to jpg compression. It has excellent contrast with bright planets and objects against the black of space.It is of high resolution and over 1000px – 1440 × 904. Free use:”This file is in the public domain because it was created by NASA. NASA copyright policy states that ‘NASA material is not protected by copyright unless noted’”. I have not been able to find the specific hyperlink for this image, though I have messaged the original uploader here and here. Adds a diagram of the solar system for the article. A key image to the article itself. Accurately portrays the (currently) nine planets and is correctly labeled as “not to scale” as such an image would be preposterously large and unpleasing due to the vastness of space. Though the image is subject to debate due to 2006 redefinition of planet, it shows the longheld, and enduring belief of nine planets which has been largely accepted for over 75 years.

Caption: The solar system is a stellar system comprising of the Sun and the retinue of celestial objects gravitationally bound to it: currently there are 9 official planets and their 165 known moons,<ref>{{cite web| title= The Jupiter Satellite Page|author=Scott S. Sheppard| work=University of Hawaii|url=http://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/~sheppard/satellites/|accessdate=2006-07-23}}</ref> as well as asteroids, meteoroids, planetoids, comets, and interplanetary dust. (note: this description was largely copied from Solar system and probably should be worked on before officially featured.)

Once again, this is my first nom and I appreciate any criticism and/or comments of my nom. Please contact me or reply here about it if you would like to say something.

Nominate and support. --Will Mak 050389 04:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment about the nom itself. There really isn't any need to copy the FP criteria here; it clutters the page with information that's already available one click away. Furthermore, that information is part of a living document -- one that could change in a minute or an hour or a day, rendering what's included here outdated and inaccurate. -- Moondigger 04:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Noted and I have cleaned it up. --Will Mak 050389 04:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Stylistically there are a few things I might quibble over, but my main objection is that this presents stale, outdated information in that it doesn't include 2003 UB₃₁₃ (the so-called tenth planet, bigger than Pluto), Sedna, or any representation of a Kuiper Belt Object or the Kuiper belt itself. -- Moondigger 04:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Now that Pluto is no longer a planet, can't it serve as a good representation of a Kuiper Belt Object/Dwarf Planet? Surely we don't want to unclude all of them in this graphic. Kaldari 19:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. This is a very good image in terms of quality and understanding. However, there's a fine line between showing too little and showing too much. This particular image does an excellent job of displaying the classical (and better-known) model of the solar system, but as Moondigger said, an up-to-date model might be more appropriate for Wikipedia (this version won't be the better-known model forever). I'm not sure where to stand, because once you start adding stuff to the diagram, it gets more and more crowded, but then again, it would be nice to have an accurate model. I suppose if this image had an alternate version that coincided with the definition of the classical planets, i.e., excluded Pluto, then it would would have encyclopedic value and a formal definition of what it depicts, rather than "this is the solar system, as of early 2006". I suppose Pluto could be edited out to meet the definition of a "classical planet". In any case, whatever this diagram depicts, it depicts it well, and I suppose that everyone else will decide whether it's encyclopedic or not. --Tewy 07:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- P.S. Good job on the nomination, I haven't seen such a detailed caption in a long time. It's good to see someone who hasn't been here so long that they've gotten lazy ;-). --Tewy 07:15, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you, I have tried to describe my points about the image as best as possible based on the "What is a FP?" criteria. But I can't take credit for the caption, as it says, I pretty much just copied it from Solar System. --Will Mak 050389 17:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support. (Add a link to the article covering the IAU redefinition in the caption.) Good pic. --Billpg 10:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Q: How many planets in our solar system have moons? A: Only one. Stevage 14:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Which would you prefer, that we not include an example of satelites at all or that we inlcude all 240 known natural satelites in the Solar System. I think having one example of a satelite in the graphic is appropriate, just as it has one example of a comet and one example of a dwarf planet. Kaldari 20:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The grid is supposed to represent the ecliptic, I guess -- but if it does, then not only is the graphic incomplete, lacking the newly-discovered bodies I mentioned previously -- it's also incorrect, in that it has Pluto on the ecliptic. Pluto's orbit is highly-inclined w/r/t the ecliptic -- it does not resemble that depicted here. -- Moondigger 14:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The image if the sun is great, but the rest don't apport anything. --Neo139 15:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- What does "apport" mean? Kaldari 20:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose My biggest problem is that it's not to any scale. There is probably a way you can create a scale to fit the solar system (a logarithmic scale, perhaps?). Also, I oppose per Moondigger and Stevage. It's technically correct, and it would be nice for perhaps grade school kids who are trying to memorize their planets (though it doesn't name the planets), but it fails when it comes to moons of Jupiter, Saturn (both of whom have moons larger than some planets), etc., and when it comes to the shape and angle of the orbits of the planets.Joniscool98 16:00, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Though I do respect all of the oppose comments, this image displays the nine planets that have been considered the solar system for a very long time. (My guess is over 75 years due to Pluto's discovery in 1930.) I do not know that this will affect any of the votes, but this is why I like this picture and not one that would include Ceres, 2003 UB₃₁₃, and Sedna. It is almost like a capture of our beliefs over the last several decades. --Will Mak 050389 17:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing special and not to scale. Could be technically obsolete soon if the IAU officially approves their crappy definition of a planet. --Nebular110 00:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course it's not to scale, that would make for a rather useless graphic. Picture a yellow circle about a centimeter in diameter (for the Sun) and then a black expanse extending about 100 feet past the edge of your monitor. The gas giants would each be about 1 pixel. Earth would not be visible. Regardless of the IAU decision, the inclusion of Pluto serves as a good example of Dwarf Planets and Kupier Belt Objects. Kaldari 20:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's artistic as well as being informative. Plus, it doesn't include any of the so-called 'planets' such as 2003 UB₃₁₃, Ceres, etc, etc... which is a Good Thing in its own right. Nippoo 00:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I have to admit, I never thought I'd see somebody advocate the exclusion of valid, topical information on Wikipedia. That's never a "Good Thing."-- Moondigger 00:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:I coudn't agree with you more Moondigger.Nnfolz 06:01, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree as well. If the said bodies do become "official" planets, then it is our job, regardless of our personal opinions, to include that valid information in Wikipedia. --Nebular110 15:06, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The picture is amaizing, but given the situation about defining the term 'Planet' i'm not too inclined to promote an image that will most likely be outdated in about a month or two.Nnfolz 06:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- How will it be outdated? Regardless of the IAU decision, the inclusion of Pluto serves as a good example of Dwarf Planets and Kupier Belt Objects. Kaldari 20:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral per Tewy. --Thelb ⁴ 11:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Great picture (nice find), but terrible timing. Might be better to re-nominate after the dust has settled a bit. This image could then be nominated as Classic solar system view :) It clearly documents what we thought of as planets for like 60 years. -Ravedave 18:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not a graphic of "planets". It's supposed to give an overview of the contents of the Solar System. As such it includes an example of a satelite (Luna), a comet, asteroids, and whatever term you want to call Pluto (minor planet, dwarf planet, Kupier Belt object). Kaldari 20:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment New version of image added with Pluto deleted to only show "Classic" planets. --Will Mak 050389 04:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment i don't wanna start a debate here, but I think pluto should be included as a 'classic planet'. The controversy about its status only became heated a couple of years ago (please correct me if i'm worng about that statement).Nnfolz 11:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An edit that only shows the "classical" view of the solar system (those objects known prior to the invention of the telescope) would not include Neptune, Uranus, or the asteroid belt. If we wanted to show the version of the solar system as it was understood between 1930 and 2000 (though I see little reason to depict that particular 'view' other than nostalgia) then it should include all the moons around any of the planets known at the time. What we have here (in either edit) does not conform to any reasonably logical model of the solar system, unless you redefine the solar system to be "what's shown in this graphic." -- Moondigger 12:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why do we need to delete Pluto? This is not a graphic of "the planets". It's a graphic of the solar system. Last time I checked, Pluto had not been ejected from the solar system :) Kaldari 20:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who said we had to delete Pluto? My complaint is that the graphic does not accurately represent any reasonable definition of the solar system. -- Moondigger 00:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This looks pretty cool, but the lack of moons on most of the planets kills it. I would support a version with all the moons in place (and perhaps names) --Fir0002 12:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- So you want all 240 known natural satellites within our Solar system added to this graphic?? With names?? Why not add all 135,000 asteroids while we're at it. Kaldari 19:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. In a relatively dramatic turnaround from the direction they appeared to be going a few days ago, the International Astronomical Union has adopted a new definition of "planet" that excludes Pluto. Pluto and the recently-discovered objects previously mentioned are now classified as "dwarf planets." I'd suggest suspending this nomination, and waiting for NASA to release something similar, either including the dwarf planets and moons, or excluding the dwarf planets and Earth's moon. -- Moondigger 15:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support. Yes, there are other moons besides Luna; Yes, Pluto is no longer a planet; Yes, the graphic is not to scale. However, this graphic is designed to give an overview of the contents of our Solar System, not an accurate representation (which, graphically, would be nearly useless, as it would either be overly sparse or too cluttered, depending on what methodology you used). Having only Luna in the graphic serves as a good representation of satelites, just as the sole comet in the graphic represents comets. Same for Pluto. Having Pluto in the graphic serves as a representation for the dozens of dwarf planets in the Solar system. Would we really want to show every dwarf planet in this graphic? No. Would we want to omit dwarf planets altogether? No. This graphic (the first one of the two presented) is perfectly suited for it's purpose (regardless of the IAU decision). Kaldari 19:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if I were willing to dismiss those concerns you mention (I'm not, but hypothetically speaking...), it still depicts Pluto's orbit as lying on the ecliptic, which is factually incorrect. -- Moondigger 20:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - First of all, I don't believe it is possible to judge the inclination of the orbit based on the sliver that is visible in the image. Secondly, there's nothing in the graphic to say that that object necessarily has to correspond to Pluto. Now that Pluto is no longer a planet, I would consider that object to be a generic representation of a Kupier Belt object or Dwarf Planet. Thus I don't think it would matter much what inclination of orbit is indicated. Kaldari 23:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's clearly sitting on the same flat plane indicated by the grid pattern as all the other planets. No judgement is required to see that. As for it 'corresponding' to Pluto, it's obvious that's what it is; otherwise the same argument could be made for other objects. (There's nothing in the graphic to say that object second from the end necessarily has to correspond to Neptune, either -- yet that's clearly what it is.) A generic representation of a Kuiper belt object or dwarf planet would not lie on the ecliptic either. One of the common characteristics of such objects is that they tend not to follow nearly circular orbits on the ecliptic. I would support an image similar to this one for FP status but not unless the stylistic problems and factual inaccuracies are addressed. -- Moondigger 00:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm afriad there would never be such an image of the solar system that is both stylistically pleasing and factually accurate. A factually accurate graphic of the solar system is not going to be visually appealing. Personally, I think this graphic makes pretty good trade-offs between accuracy and graphic style, but of course that's just my opinion. Kaldari 02:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose. Nah, the planets "Xena", Ceres, Charon, and Pluto should be included in this image to make a full-house solar system. Alastor Moody _(talk) 02:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Partly because of Pluto's new status, and partly because I think featuring a not-to-scale diagram like this is a bad idea. The better these types of images are aesthetically, the more potentially misleading they are, and the less likely they are to be understood as conceptual diagrams rather than realistic images. If we were to feature a diagram like this, I would want an artist's rendition with some historical significance (though copyright status probably makes finding a good one an unlikely prospect).--ragesoss 16:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Replace this image with Image:Solar_sys2.png (see above) --M @r ē ino 19:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I like it with Pluto removed, but I'd personally like it more if the Kuiper Belt was added. --Age234 20:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't like any of them, including the one with Pluto removed. If Pluto's out because it's no longer a planet, then what are any of the other non-planet objects doing there? (What is that illustration doing in an article about redefinition of a planet lacking Pluto but including a comet and asteroids?) Not that I think an image lacking those objects would be better. I think the only reasonable solution would be to create an image of the Solar System that includes all known planets and dwarf planets, with the dwarf planets not on the ecliptic, and some representive sample of moons, undiscovered Kuiper belt objects, and comets.-- Moondigger 22:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, doesn't really convey information well because it's too far from reality. There's no scale nor labels, and the cropping and artistic, rather than scientific, basis for the image limit how much usefulness it can have. It looks like it would be used as an illustration in a children's book about the solar system rather than a serious teaching tool. I'd rather have a diagram of the solar system that I can rely on to tell me something about it. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 23:17, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 03:31, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]